You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

And I've decided that I'm not going to keep empowering the status quo. Sorry guys. I love you all here, but I can't support something I don't believe in, something that is detrimental to all of us, whether people acknowledge it or not. I don't know who I'm going to vote for as of now, but voting for Obama or republicans would not be in the best interest of all of us. Voting for the lesser of the two evils is not much of an option. We all griped and complained about the atrocities committed by Bush. Obama has continued some of these same atrocities. So, how can he be supported just because he has a D behind his name? It obviously means nothing.

You all may be disappointed in this stance and I am mindful of that. I've tried to keep my complaints to a minimum, but at the same time, I think these issues are too important to ignore. The fact that these views are being expressed by Cenk on Gore's network makes me wonder what Gore's position is.

If it gets to the point where my viewpoint is no longer welcome, please let me know. I care too much about you guys to keep voicing my opinion when no one else feels the way I do. Peace to all of you.

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party were appetizers for what is to come. I have never seen the American people so disgruntled, and neither has anyone else. Every number is a record. Congressional approval is at a record low of 9%. Can it get lower? Can it go negative? The number of people satisfied with the candidates running for president is at a record low. Dissatisfaction in this category is four times higher than it was even in 2008.

The Tea Party might not know it but they are mad about the same thing that Occupy Wall Street is. They have a sense that our politicians have sold us out - and they are 100% right. The problem isn't Big Government or Big Money. The problem is when Big Money buys Big Government leading to Big Corruption.

It isn't personal corruption. No one is stuffing money into freezers (at least not a lot of people are). It isn't that Senator Ben Nelson or Senator Orrin Hatch is a bad person. It's that we have built a system that is built on systemic corruption. The only way you can get elected is by doing the bidding of huge donors. And those donors can control the process entirely because of the unlimited amount of money they can spend.

The average winning House candidate now spends $1.4 million per election. The average winning Senate candidate spends $10 million. Which average guy has that kind of money? You must raise the money from big donors - and then you are at their mercy. If you want to win, you need the money. If you want the money, you have to give them something in return.

How often does money control the outcome? An overwhelming amount of the time. The candidate with more money wins 93% of the time on the House side and 94% of the time on the Senate side. It's game, set and match.

So, of course, our representatives don't represent us, they represent the people who got them elected - the big donors.

This system cannot stand. It will not stand. I'm not saying that it falls in 2012. That is way too optimistic. But the battle is joined in 2012. There are now many constitutional amendments trying to address this problem. Those movements will only grow. And probably at surprising speed. Everything moves so much quicker now (just look at how many times and how quickly the Republican primaries have turned already). This movement is going to take the country by storm and Washington is going to be completely surprised by it. As usual, they will say "no one could have seen it coming."

I'm telling you now, it's coming! People are starting to become furious that we have in effect lost our representative democracy. It's time for a revolution. Not a physical one, but a political one. A revolution that turns over the establishment's apple cart, challenges this corrupt system and brings back our democracy. Get ready for 2012.

get rid of all republicans who are against Obama and the world can live as one.

Why texan do you say one thing in one thread, then say the opposite in another.I am not disappointed in your stance here, because this is YOUR stance and has been for a long time.And I have called you on it.

You hate Obama. Stop denying it or waffling.

Just don't get annoyed when you are called on it.

The revolutoin was won in 2008.That you are not patient is your own fault.

Voting for a racist like Ron Paul won't get your answers. He is a 35 year eliteofficeholder with views of the wild, wild west. Unless you agree with those views,he is not your answer and never was(unless you agree with his literature and all).

SCOTUS changing to democratic is the only way the system can quickly change(in the next 12 years).

you ain't gonna get amendments, being that 1/2 the people don't want it.

This post has been edited by ReElectAlGore2016 on Jan 1 2012, 09:26 PM

Actually, imo, the world would live as one if we stopped trying to divide people by race, religion, political parties, sexual orientation, income brackets, etc, etc, etc. And also, if the world STOPPED being motivated by money. When people do things for money, they lose their principles. Our politicians are a PRIME example of this. All the decisions they make, in the name of their corporate owners, affect us negatively.

I don't know what you are talking about - me saying the opposite in different threads. :unsure: I think I've expressed on many occasions that I am literally torn on what to do this next election cycle. If it sounds like I am waffling, it is because I am TRYING to be open to voting for Obama again. But, try as I may, I don't think I can do it. I have often found that when I went against my gut instinct, that I usually regretted it in the end.

And you are free to call me on my stance all you want. I have no problem with that. But you are NOT free to put words in my mouth. I don't hate Obama. I just don't like how he has represented us. I hated what Bush did too. I think my positions have always been pretty consistent, except maybe on occasions where my views have evolved a bit.

If I hated Obama, I wouldn't have voted for him in the beginning. And actually, I have no regrets about voting for him the first time around, because I did so believing he would bring us change he promised. But now that I know differently, I would be a fool to vote for him again, imo. Nothing personal about him. Just his actions as president. In that article of Greenwald's, he listed many things Obama has done as President. How some can give him free passes over those things, in the name of partisan politics is beyond me. This goes beyond the left-right paradigm. Have we as a people lost such a human touch that we no longer see what is in front of our faces. Instead, like robots, some will support the candidate with a "d" beside his/her name, regardless of whether they have truly represented democratic values.

And it's not about patience, Clay. It's about what THIS president has done during his time in office. If you can accept that, that's fine. That's your right. But I believe I'm at a point where I can say that I WON'T vote for Obama again. Of course, things can change in 11 months, so we'll see. I actually hope OWS will bring some kind of great political revolution, but that's probably too much too soon to hope for right now.

And btw, I don't support Ron Paul. He has some views I can agree on, but I'm not sure I trust him too much for one thing. I was reading HuffPost earlier about his stance on the Civil Rights Act and I disagree with it. I also disagree with his and Rand Paul's stance on the healthcare issue. I was watching a clip of Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders a while back, debating the issue and the fact that Rand Paul was saying that healthcare for everyone was like slavery (re doctors being expected to treat everyone) was of concern to me. So nope, I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Ron Paul either, even if I defend someone's right to support him. I would much more prefer a ticket like Bernie Sanders and Dylan Ratigan or vice versa. I think that's a match I could go for or with Elizabeth Warren or a few others.

And try as I may, I can't put all my eggs in the SCOTUS basket. Too many bad things have been passed in the past fews years to overlook. And yes, I'm sure that Bernie's amendment has about a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

This is what needs implementing, although what's the likelihood of that happening? It would take a major political revolution of epic proportions. Maybe OWS will be the movers and shakers to make that happen...maybe not. Btw, they now have a social forum. I haven't signed up yet, but I was checking it out earlier. They have a video on Monsanto that I was listening to - it's long, so I haven't finished it yet, but it's interesting.

Now, what are you talking about regarding "what do I want to happen with Obama?" You've lost me here. I'm not hinting at anything. So don't put words in my mouth. Which reminds me, have you ever thought of being a politician? You're great at spinning.

Quite honestly, people coming to a democrat site like this one, and then all of a sudden, days before Iowa spewing philosophies so at odds with this site which is comprised of Democrats, reminds me of something

10 points to anyone who comes up with the correct term.

and by the way, when I get to another computer where I can cut/paste, I am separate going to post what exactly Obama said and his intentions, that youand others have distorted something awful.If james were here today, he would have already posted it.

It is just another rightwing republicantealibertarian way of trying to upsurp powerfrom the executive branch.(as they want to get rid of judges, and senators and make the house the oneand only power in America.)

I'm afraid you're reading more into my words than are there. Could it be that you believe a little too much in conspiracy theories that you assign everyone with one?

I've said it before but I'll say it again. It's NOT that people have money. It's those that abuse it. Look at Gore, who is just one exception to the rule. He has donated millions to the climate issue which is something that benefits us. Then look at those in the oil/gas industry that spend millions of dollars to discredit the climate issue. Look at the people at Monsanto that pay our elected officials to side with Monsanto time and time again, which that video about Monsanto was talking about how people in Alabama have died of cancer after being exposed to pollution by Monsanto that they covered up. So again, it's how one uses their money, not that they are rich themselves. But yes, it would be great to get money out of politics because more often than not, it is used negatively rather than positively.

Somehow, I think Gore would support my stance, just a gut feeling I have. He got screwed over the system too and I certainly haven't heard him singing Obama's praises in a long time.

And if there's anything about Obama that you want cut and pasted here, I would be glad to do it for you. Just let me know. The thing is, Clay. I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to go against Obama. I would much rather people see for themselves and make the decisions they can live with. I am just telling you how I FEEL about it.

You know, I had a uncle (by marriage) at Christmas time who was really putting Obama down and he's not even a Southerner. He's from Minnesota. And I defended Obama to him - on certain issues. He is your O'Reilly and Fox watching type. Need I say more?

the following is what Obama actually said-He won't detain Americans, even though he can.BUT he won't give up Presidential authority the constitution grants, in what the partisian rightwing wants to grab from him.as always, the haters distort the facts, and Obama is 100% correct again.

....

the following is what Obama said and signed in the signing statment, which presidents have all done and is legal.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor's Note: This phrase is nothing more than a legal-loophole clause referring to threats to veto prior versions, as the White House disputed not being given deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

TFG, if sources are telling you these constitutional amendments have a serious chance of passing I think you need to look at those sources and realize they're simply not credible, not dealing with reality. They seem to be whipping people up into this frenzy and then leave us hanging, with no practical outlet more productive than banging our heads against the wall. There seems to be some whisper campaign trying to suggest that by signing the NDAA Obama has committed some atrocity. I don't buy it.

Making the world a better place is usually not fast and exciting. The race is won not by the hare but by the turtle. I hope we make progress in 2012, I think we can if folks show up to vote Democratic and we retake the House in 2013 and President Obama is re-elected. Otherwise we at risk of slipping backwards. American politics is always about choosing the lesser of two evils, if you want to look at it that way. I like to think I have a more optimistic way of thinking about our situation. If we want to work on making a better country then playing the game as it is, not how we wish it to be, is the only real way to accomplish our goals.

the following is what Obama actually said-He won't detain Americans, even though he can.BUT he won't give up Presidential authority the constitution grants, in what the partisian rightwing wants to grab from him.as always, the haters distort the facts, and Obama is 100% correct again.

....

the following is what Obama said and signed in the signing statment, which presidents have all done and is legal.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor's Note: This phrase is nothing more than a legal-loophole clause referring to threats to veto prior versions, as the White House disputed not being given deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Clay, I appreciate you going to the trouble to post all of that. I am aware, though, of what President Obama has said about the bill. Yes, he did say that while he has that authority, that he will not use it. But why should we believe him? After all, he is the one who wanted the bill revised to include more Presidential authority. His words are just that - words. His actions speak louder. There was a good response to your post over at the other board. You should go read it.

And here's another interesting thing I read over there. Of course, I'm not familiar with the website they linked to, so can anybody dispute this information? I'm really interested in learning more about the accuracy of this.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011Obama Nominates Carlyle Group Partner to The Federal Reserve

While on vacation in Hawaii, Obama tapped Jerome Powell to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Powel served as the undersecretary for finance under the president George H. W. Bush and was a partner of The Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group is a massive private equity firm and one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

They're made up of some of the most influential policymakers over the last five administrations including both Bush presidents, former Secretary of State James Baker III, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, and former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt to name a few.

Other notable investors in The Carlyle Group include the bin Laden family and the Saudi Royal Family. Coincidentally, George H. W. Bush was meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers.

If there is ANY truth to this at all, I find it very bothersome on so many levels.

Some of you have made your feelings about Glenn Greenwald pretty clear, so I wasn't going to post this whole article, but I thought he made some pretty good points here, even though I don't support Ron Paul. Check these paragraphs out:

"The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes."

And Wayne, you made the comment above this post that America has always been about choosing the lesser of the two evils. Speaking for myself only, I haven't usually felt that way. I didn't think Obama was the lesser of the two evils when I voted for him the first time. I thought he was honestly a good choice. But then again, my perception was based on how he sold himself - as a candidate of hope and change. But he did make numerous pledges that he walked away from after getting elected.

I also did not think Gore was the lesser of the two evils. I thought he would have been a great President. I thought the same thing about Ross Perot. But it's hard to know what a person will do until they're actually in office.

Who knows. Maybe I just have too much of an idealistic view of the way things should be. But no, I have no expectations that any of these constitutional amendments would pass. But at this point, hope is about all I have left, other than signing petitions and things like that. I admire the dedication of OWS - and the time commitment they've made to try to bring about change. I think both TNBlue and Chad have been active in their local movements and that's a good thing.

I agree with you in the hope that we can make progress in 2012. But we view the path to progress and change differently. Maybe somehow that can be reconciled between now and November. I certainly hope so. :Y:

I see ZERO knowledge of Al Gore or reality here(you didn't know about his debate with Perot, and many other things), and yourwishy washy back and forth, only to wake up the week of Iowa with a diatrabeagainst Obama as always.

And the Carlye Group is a power group, and a think tank.

every single person who is in power at one time in their life or another passedthrough or spoke at or to the Carlye Group, it is considered something good people put on their resume' left right and center.

there is NO conspiracy theory except in your mind.

You are listening to people who see things like that crazy Ron Howard movie"A beautiful mind with that John Naish guy.He was insane and only he saw the things he saw.(or bipolar as they might call it today).

they add up 2 plus 1 and get 4 in their beautiful mind.

Too much of that nutty stuff.

Note the title of THIS board texforgore- A REALITY BASED ORGANIZATION(these stupid conspiracy theories are NOT reality based.because if one is in power, of course, one is going to know or work for someone in power good or bad.

However, in reverse, people (like you) seem to have gotten Ron Paul's anti-warline, in the midst of 1000s of lines he said, and flock to him, even though he isso far off the mainstream.

And I ask you texanforgore- would you consider David Duke a regular member of society even if Duke espoused anti-war views? A person explicity soliciting money from people with those views, in 2011, is not mainstream America It is 1850s America.

the rightwing is trying to steal a President's constitutional right.the president has that power and always has.NOT THE HOUSEbut that is the view this rightwing extremist soundbyte is calling for-the houseto upsurp the other branches. A right THEY DO NOT HAVE

Al Gore himself said, two sides talking, one like President Obama says realitybased things

that does not mean the crap the conspiracy theorists (who are still spewing birther nonsense) and the Ron Paul's who for 35 years are lifetime politicians, cultivating their own pockets with actively soliciting money for way outside the mainstreamas being equal

No, the two sides are not equal in facts.

the earth is not flat, nor does the stork bring babies.

and people on this site don't want to be barraged (IMHO) with conspiracy theories that some crazy internet writers are quoted from daily on other sites.

Al Gore knows firsthand what a 3rd party run did- it directly led to him not being seated as President. :mad: :mad: :mad: Al Gore is not going to vote for Ron Paul

when you are on other sites texanforgore, you need to look at the life history and ask yourself the last time(IF EVER) any of those people you seem to worshipsupported ANY democrat at all. Certainly they only make a mockery of Al Goreevery single time his name comes up there.

You are so full of BS, Clay. And your attempts to discredit are so transparent. Speaking of Al Gore, I'm watching his channel right now. The 99% is on right now. And you know what else is included in the lineup?

Bush's Brain (did he even have one? Oh yeah, Karl Rove. <_< )Murdoch: Breaking the SpellHow to Start a RevolutionCenk Uyger (who has condemned Obama signing of the NDAA)Keith Olbermann

Hmmm....sounds like Gore is on the side of the people and is fed up with politics as usual. He knows what kind of corruption is going on.

And the President DOES NOT have the right to violate our constitutional rights - no matter how much you worship him.

You have the NERVE to lecture me on REALITY or even conspiracy theories???? (Posted Image)

And for all your talk of Gore not being for 3rd parties, you sure did push it enough during the 2008 election.

So, you who have pushed Gore to run as an independent, who have dissed the Clintons in the past until now, when Hillary serves a purpose to you, and for someone who has supported an independent over a running dem, your credibility with me is about at zilch. Enough said.

Plenty of people thought that the contest between Al Gore and George W Bush was a choice between the lesser of two evils. That was the main point of Ralph Nader's campaign, to say that Gore and Bush were alike. I don't think we need to go into how catastrophically wrong that was.

If Gore were seated after the election lots of people would have been disappointed that once he became president, he wouldn't be able to fulfill all his campaign promises, he would have to compromise with Congress, he would need to try and work with Republicans sometimes, Al Gore would have needed to actually govern, not just make speeches and campaign like candidates do. I would not have been disappointed because that's the nature of the presidency and what we should expect. I'm not disappointed in Obama, he's done what he said he would do, and the best job he can, to the extent that is humanly possible in the current political environment. You can't really ask for more than that.

Plenty of people thought that the contest between Al Gore and George W Bush was a choice between the lesser of two evils. That was the main point of Ralph Nader's campaign, to say that Gore and Bush were alike. I don't think we need to go into how catastrophically wrong that was.

If Gore were seated after the election lots of people would have been disappointed that once he became president, he wouldn't be able to fulfill all his campaign promises, he would have to compromise with Congress, he would need to try and work with Republicans sometimes, Al Gore would have needed to actually govern, not just make speeches and campaign like candidates do. I would not have been disappointed because that's the nature of the presidency and what we should expect. I'm not disappointed in Obama, he's done what he said he would do, and the best job he can, to the extent that is humanly possible in the current political environment. You can't really ask for more than that.